Chapter III. The Broader Legal Framework

Busch, Anna Friederike

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46770-1_3

Chapter III. The Broader Legal Framework

Anna Friederike Busch⁴

Chapter

490 Accesses

Part of the book series: Munich Studies on Innovation and Competition ((MSIC,volume 3))

Abstract

The most relevant legal areas and instruments involved in the topic of protecting TCEs may be illustrated like this (see Fig. 1).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
On international customary law in general see Verdross and Simma (1984) §§ 567 et seq.; for the definition of the term, see especially p. 347.
2.
Those are, among others, Articles 7, 27 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the ILO Convention No. 169.
3.
See, e.g., Schlinkert (2007), and Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 339–506.
4.
It was adopted by a vote of 143 in favor to 4 against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), with 11 abstentions. See UN Department of Public Information (non-official report), available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/ga10612.doc.htm, last visited January 10, 2011.
5.
The representative of Colombia is reported to have referred to “legal incompatibilities” of the text as the reason for that country’s abstention: provisions of Articles 30, 19, and 32 “were in direct contradiction with Colombia’s internal system,” as the UN Press Release states. However, he pointed to the Colombian Constitution “as one of the most advanced with regard to recognizing the collective rights of indigenous peoples” – particularly regarding the recognition of traditional territories – and he stressed that the abstention would not affect Colombia’s commitment to carry out internal provisions aimed at preserving Colombia’s multiethnic nature and diversity. UN Department of Public Information (non-official report), available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/ga10612.doc.htm, last visited January 10, 2011.
6.
This includes the right to “maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as … artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.” Paragraph 2 reads: “States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.”
7.
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 reads: “States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.”
8.
Emphasis added by the author. Article 31 then continues: “1. … as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.”
9.
See Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter of the United Nations.
10.
Verdross and Simma (1984) §1234; Stoll and von Hahn (2008) 27.
11.
Representative Hill of Australia, UN Department of Public Information, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/ga10612.doc.htm.
12.
Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 339–506. Torres has also argued in general that “noncompulsory mechanisms are the best suited to encourage states to adopt the norm in the long run,” as formally acknowledging indigenous claims would render states “vulnerable to international intervention in what are usually considered domestic concerns.” Torres (1991) 127, 128.
13.
Reputable legal scholar Wolfgang Fikentscher in a personal communication on July 2, 2008.
14.
See, e.g., the Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Saramaka People vs. Suriname Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Saramaka People v. Suriname (Judgment of November 28, 2007, Series C No. 172).
15.
Article 27 of the ICCPR, applied in an earlier decision by the Human Rights Committee (Apirana Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand). Communication No. 547/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 (2000).
16.
Article 32 states: “1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.”
17.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Saramaka People v. Suriname (Judgment of November 28, 2007, Series C No. 172).
18.
Ibid.
19.
UN Department of Public Information (non-official report), available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/ga10612.doc.htm, last visited January 10, 2011.
20.
Ibid.
21.
The representative of Argentina (indirectly) alluded to incompatibilities with the principle of territorial integrity and national unity. Mexico, Paraguay, and Brazil interpreted the reference to self-determination in a similar way, supra.
22.
It would “not solve the problems of the planet,” the representative of Bolivia is reported to have said, supra.
23.
“Una sensación ambivalente y ‘agridulce’”, see Barié (2008) 33, translation by the author.
24.
Declaración de representantes indígenas reunidos en el Caucus de los Pueblos Indígenas en 2006 al aprobarse el proyecto de la Declaración Universal de Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas en el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas, 29 junio 2006, see http://www.aulaintercultural.org/article.php3?id_article=1836.
25.
U.N. Doc. E/C.19/2008/5/Add.3.
26.
U.N. Doc. E/C.19/2008/L.7.
27.
See at Section 2.B.IV. below.
28.
Personal communication with ethnologist Anna Meiser on January 8, 2009.
29.
See the table giving a complete overview of all Latin American countries in Roffe (2007) 147. All treaties are available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/, last visited January 10, 2011.
30.
Available at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm, last visited January 10, 2011.
31.
See, e.g., the gap analysis on the protection of TCEs commissioned by the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), WIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/4(b) Rev. (2008), available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_13/wipo_grtkf_ic_13_4_b_rev.pdf, last visited October 28, 2010.
32.
http://www.unesco.de/155.html?&L=0, last visited July 5, 2010.
33.
See http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#ENTRY, last visited July 5, 2010.
34.
On legislative and especially practical impacts, see at Chapter IV Section 2.II.1. below.
35.
The declaration reads as follows: “La República de Chile formula reserva a lo previsto en el N° 3 del Artículo 25, sobre Solución de Controversias y al Anexo a la Convención, por lo cual declara no reconocer el Procedimiento de Conciliación allí establecido, el que considera inaplicable a su respecto, de acuerdo a lo señalado en el N° 4 del Artículo 25.” See http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, last visited July 5, 2010.
36.
The reservation reads: “The United Mexican States wishes to enter the following reservation to the application and interpretation of Article 20 of the Convention: (a) This Convention shall be implemented in a manner that is in harmony and compatible with other international treaties, especially the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and other international trade treaties. (b) With regard to paragraph 1, Mexico recognizes that this Convention is not subordinate to any other treaties and that other treaties shall not be subordinate to this Convention. (c) With regard to paragraph 1 (b), Mexico does not prejudge its position in future international treaty negotiations.” Original: Spanish, see http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, last visited July 5, 2010.
37.
See at Section 2.B.V. below.
38.
Larrea Richerand (2008) Chapter SEGUNDO. translation by the author.
39.
See e.g. at Chapter IV Section 2.II.1. and Section 2.B.V. below.
40.
Available at http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00006, last visited July 5, 2010.
41.
See http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17716&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#ENTRY, last visited July 5, 2010.
42.
Article 2.3 of the 2003 Convention.
43.
Article 2.3 of the 2003 Convention.
44.
Articles 11 and 15 of the Convention.
45.
“Instituto do Patrimômino Histórico e Artístico Nacional”, Article 3(1) of the Brazilian Decree 3551 of 2000. On this see at Chapter IV Section 2.C. below.
46.
Personal communication with Ana Gita de Oliveira, Department for the Immaterial Patrimony of the IPHAN, in March 2009 in Brasilia. For details on the Brazilian situation see at Chapter IV Section 2.C. below.
47.
Article 13(d) of the 2003 Convention.
48.
El Diario (of Bolivia) (August 27, 2010), available at http://www.eldiario.net/noticias/2010/2010_08/nt100827/6_01clt.php, last visited November 10, 2010.
49.
Ibid.
50.
See at Chapter IV Section 2.C.III. below.
51.
Available at http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13055&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, last visited July 5, 2010.
52.
Article 7 of the Convention. Emphasis added by the author.
53.
Article 7 of the Convention. Emphasis added by the author.
54.
Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 420.
55.
Ibid.
56.
Lipszyc (1993) 96.
57.
Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf, last visited November 10, 2010.
58.
Article 1 of the Declaration.
59.
Article 4 of the Declaration.
60.
See for details at Section 3.A. below.
61.
On the consideration of intellectual property in free-trade agreements in general, see Drexl (2010) paras 106 et seq.
62.
The division into two groups is inspired by the observation of two phases of negotiation of free-trade agreements by the European Union with “remoter trading partners” (“weiter entfernt liegende Handelspartner”) made by id. para 115.
63.
Relevant provisions are Article 1705 on copyright, including the protection of databases, Article 1706 on the rights of the producer of a sound recording, Article 1708 on trademarks, Article 1711 on trade secrets, Article 1712 on geographical indications, and Article 1713 on industrial designs. The full text is available at http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?conID=590, last visited October 28, 2010.
64.
On this see Drexl (2010) para 106.
65.
Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, Official Journal of the European Union No. L 289/I/52, 53 of October 30, 2008.
66.
Article 150(1)–(4) of the Agreement.
67.
Article 150(5) lit a) and 150(6) of the Agreement.
68.
See at Chapter IV Section 1.E. below.
69.
Monroy Rodríguez (2006) no pagination.
70.
http://www.ftaa-alca.org/alca_e.asp, last visited November 2, 2010.
71.
Ibid.
72.
Chapter XX Intellectual Property Rights, Draft Agreement, FTAA – Free Trade Area of the Americas, FTAA.TNC/w/133/Rev. 3 (November 21, 2003), available at www.ftaa-alca.org/ftaadraft03/ChapterXX_e.asp, last visited November 2, 2010.
73.
See http://www.ftaa-alca.org/alca_e.asp, last visited November 2, 2010.
74.
Current developments can be found at ibid.
75.
Article 1 of the Draft Agreement.
76.
[Subsection B.2.d. Protection of [Expressions of] Folklore][Article 1. Protection of [Expressions of] Folklore] of the Draft Agreement.
77.
On this issue see at Chapter II Section 1. above.
78.
Chapter XX Intellectual Property Rights, [Subsection B.2.f. Traditional Knowledge and Access to Genetic Resources under the Intellectual Property Framework] of the Draft Agreement.
79.
Venezuela signed a membership agreement on June 17, 2006, to become the fifth full member of MERCOSUR, but its incorporation has not yet been ratified by the Brazilian and Paraguayan parliaments, see http://www.mercosur.int, last visited November 1, 2010.
80.
See for details Martinez Medrano and Soucasse (no year).
81.
Available at http://www.mercosur.int/msweb/Normas/normas_web/Decisiones/ES/Dec_008_095_.PDF, last visited October 29, 2010.
82.
Article 5, para. 3, of the 1995 Protocol.
83.
Article 19 of the 1995 Protocol.
84.
Decision No. 16/98 of the MERCOSUR Council, available at http://www.mercosur.int/msweb/Normas/normas_web/Decisiones/ES/Dec_016_098_Prot-Armonización_Normas_Mat-Diseños_Indust_Acta%202_98.PDF. An English version is available at http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/12/10/5009.pdf, last visited October 29, 2010.
85.
Article 8 of the 1998 Protocol.
86.
Article 7, para. 2, of the 1998 Protocol.
87.
Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 364.
88.
Ibid.
89.
Lipszyc (1993) 96.
90.
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/c-16.html, last visited December 7, 2010.
91.
Ibid.
92.
Article 1 of the Convention.
93.
Article 2, lit. a), of the Convention. Lucas-Schlötter (2008) note 429 refers to the colonial era and following periods in Article 2, lit. b).
94.
Article 2, lit. e), of the Convention.
95.
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, last visited December 7, 2010. For further details on this Convention with regard to the protection of TCEs see Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 422 et seq.
96.
See at Section 2.B. below.
97.
For details on the OAS see the Charter of the Organization of American States, http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm#ch9, last visited December 6, 2010.
98.
For the original version in Spanish see http://www.mercosur.int/msweb/Normas/normas_web/Decisiones/ES/Dec_011_096_.PDF, last visited October 29, 2010.
99.
Article 1, para. 1, of the Protocol, available in English at http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/18/3/8544.pdf, last visited October 29, 2010.
100.
Article 6 reads: “The States Parties shall encourage cooperation among their respective historical archives, libraries, museums and institutions responsible for preserving their cultural heritage in order to harmonize the criteria used in classification, cataloguing and preservation and to establish a register of the historical and cultural heritage of the countries members of MERCOSUR.”
101.
“[T]he use of a common computerized databank established within the Cultural Information System in Latin America and the Caribbean (SICLAC),” Article 7 of the Protocol.
102.
Arantes (2009 II) 351 seq.
103.
Article 8 stipulates that: “Each State Party shall protect within its territory the intellectual property rights attached to works originating in the other States Parties, in accordance with its domestic legislation and with any international treaties to which it has acceded, or to which it may accede in the future, and which are in force in each State Party.” Translation according to the UN version in English, available at http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/18/3/8544.pdf, last visited October 29, 2010.
104.
See also Article 1 of the Treaty. The full text is available at http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/laws/pdfs/treaty01.pdf, last visited October 29, 2010.
105.
See at Section 1.A. above.
106.
http://www.oas.org/Juridico/english/treaties/b-32.html, last visited December 4, 2010. The Convention was adopted on November 22, 1969 and entered into force on July 18, 1978, see ibid.
107.
http://www.cidh.oas.org/Indigenas/chap.2g.htm, last visited December 4, 2009.
108.
Article 26 of the Convention. For the Protocol of Buenos Aires see http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-31_Protocol_of_Buenos_Aires_sign.htm, last visited December 4, 2010.
109.
For details on the OAS see at Section 2.A.II. above.
110.
It is dated November 19, 2009 and available at http://www.oas.org/dil/GT-DADIN_doc_334-08_rev4_eng.pdf, last visited December 4, 2010.
111.
E.g., policies and aims of the Andean Community at http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/who.htm, last visited December 8, 2010.
112.
For further details hereon and on a possible regional Latin American solution see at Section 2.C. below.
113.
For more details on general aspects of the Andean Community see, e.g., Unterguggenberger (1999) 17–38 and Markowski (2004) 23-33.
114.
Initially, the Cartagena Agreement of 1969 also included Chile as a member state, and in 1973 Venezuela joined the “Andean Pact,” as it was then called. Chile left the Integration System in 1976, Venezuela on April 22, 2006. Associated members, which might be invited to participate in meetings of Andean Integration System organs and institutions, are Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay: see Article 2 para. 1 of Decision 613; and Chile: see Decision 645 and http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/Exterior/chile.htm, last visited December 7, 2010.
115.
On this see at Section 2.C.II. below.
116.
The Cartagena Agreement (CA) is available at http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/normativa/ande_trie1.htm, last visited December 7, 2010.
117.
Besides, the General Secretariat, being the executive body of the Andean Community, may also issue measures that are directly applicable in the member countries, so-called Resolutions, see Article 29 CA and Article 3 para. 1 of the Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement (amended by the Cochabamba Protocol), http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/normativa/ande_trie2.htm, last visited December 7, 2010.
118.
Article 22 of the Cartagena Agreement (CA). See also http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/sai/estructura_3.html, last visited December 7, 2010.
119.
Article 21, Sentence 2, CA.
120.
Articles 16 and 17 CA. See also http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/sai/estructura_2.html, last visited December 7, 2010.
121.
Article 3, para. 1, of the Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement (amended by the Cochabamba Protocol), http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/normativa/ande_trie2.htm, last visited December 7, 2010.
122.
Article 3, para. 2, of the Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement (amended by the Cochabamba Protocol), http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/normativa/ande_trie2.htm, last visited December 7, 2010.
123.
“(Anwendungs-) Vorrang”. See the Decision of the European Court of Justice 6/64, [1964] ECR 585 – Costa v ENEL stating that the application of Community law takes precedence over the member states’ own domestic law.
124.
Preeminencia, prevalencia, or primacía are the originally used Spanish terms, see Pachón Muñoz, “El Régimen Común sobre Derecho de Autor y Derechos Conexos al Derecho de Autor,” presentation held at the “Seminario de Formación Para Profesores de Derecho Privado”, Popayán August 30 – September 2, 1994, cited from Unterguggenberger (1999) 43, note 17.
125.
For details on the Decision and a comparison to the situation in Europe at that time, see von Lewinski (1994) 470–472.
126.
Argumentum e contrario to Article 3 para 2 of the Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement (amended by the Cochabamba Protocol), http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/normativa/ande_trie2.htm, last visited December 9, 2010.
127.
Unterguggenberger (1999) 63.
128.
Or “folklore”; the analysis refers to the content rather than to the wording.
129.
See at Section 2.B.I. above.
130.
Unterguggenberger (1999) 97.
131.
Ibid.
132.
Id. 45 and 47 et seq.
133.
WIPO-UNESCO Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and other Prejudicial Actions, available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/documents/pdf/1982-folklore-model-provisions.pdf, last visited December 10, 2010.
134.
Article 15(4) as amended by the Stockholm (1967) and Paris (1971) Acts of the Berne Convention.
135.
Lipszyc (1993) 96.
136.
See Article 1 para. 3 and Articles 58, 60, 62 of the Bolivian Copyright Law of 1992.
137.
Personal and electronic communication with Fernando Zapata Lopez, General Director of the National Copyright Directorate of Colombia, in October, 2008 and February, 2009.
138.
Unterguggenberger (1999) 51 et seq.
139.
Id. 55 et seq.
140.
On the state of the political “patchwork” within the Andean Community today as a possible obstacle to the successful elaboration of a system of protection of TCEs, see at Section 2.B.V.3. below.
141.
Decisión 486 sobre el Régimen Común Andino sobre Propiedad Industrial of September 14, 2000, http://www.comunidadandina.org/normativa/dec/d486.htm (Spanish), http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/normativa/D486e.htm (unofficial English translation).
142.
Bucher (2008) 148.
143.
Article 3, para. 13, provides: “The Member Countries shall ensure that the protection granted to intellectual property elements shall be accorded while safeguarding and respecting their biological and genetic heritage together with the traditional knowledge of their indigenous, African American, or local communities. As a result, the granting of patents on inventions that have been developed on the basis of material obtained from that heritage or that knowledge shall be subordinated to the acquisition of that material in accordance with international, Andean Community, and national law. The Member Countries recognize the right and the authority of indigenous, African American, and local communities in respect of their collective knowledge.”
144.
Article 136, lit. g), stipulates that “those signs the use of which in commerce may constitute an impediment to the rights of third parties may likewise not be registered as trademarks, in particular where [they]: … g) consist of the name of indigenous, African American, or local communities, or of such denominations, words, letters, characters, or signs as are used to distinguish their products, services or methods of processing, or that constitute an expression of their culture or practice, unless the application is filed by the community itself or with its express consent.” http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/normativa/D486e.htm, last visited December 7, 2010.
145.
Group of Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC) (2001) Annex I, 6. Some authors therefore consider the decision to be progressive (see Bucher (2008) 159 et seq., while critics argue that it unnecessarily goes “beyond TRIPS” by declaring microorganisms patentable without providing practically efficient provisions on community rights, access, and traditional knowledge with the same weight as IP rights, see GRAIN (October 5, 2000).
146.
See Bucher (2008) 149, 150, note 221, also for further details and critique of the Decision 486.
147.
Article 7 of Decision 391. Decision 391 is titled the “Common Regime on Access to Genetic Resources” and is available at http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/normativa/d391e.htm, last visited December 7, 2010.
148.
Ruiz Muller (2004) 247.
149.
Id. 256.
150.
Article 3 lit. l), deals with traditional cultural expressions, but expressly applies only to objects, documents and other vehicles that are related to such immaterial cultural expressions: “Objetos, documentos y cualquier soporte relacionados con el patrimonio inmaterial: poesía, ritos, folklore, modos de vida, medicina tradicional, religiosidad popular y tecnologías tradicionales, lenguas, modismos regionales y locales, música, danzas religiosas y bailes festivos, mitos y leyendas y otros que tengan interés para la identidad cultural de cada país.” Andean Community (2004) Decision 588.
151.
Article 3 of the Decision 588 and Andean Community (no year) Culture.
152.
See Recital 4 of the Decision.
153.
See at Section 2.B.V.1. below.
154.
Available at http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/documentos/documents/machu_picchu28-7-01.htm, last visited December 10, 2010.
155.
Point 7 of the Machu Picchu Declaration.
156.
Supra.
157.
Mesa de Trabajo sobre Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas.
158.
See Article 1 of Decision 524, Andean Community (2002) Decision 524.
159.
Andean Community (2007) Decision 674.
160.
El Consejo Consultivo de Pueblos Indígenas de la Comunidad Andina.
161.
On September 13, 2007; for further details on the UN Declaration, see at Section 1.A. above.
162.
See Andean Community (2007) Conclusions of the Indigenous Forum.
163.
See recitals to and end of Decision 674, Andean Community (2007) Decision 674.
164.
Andean Community (CAN) (2008).
165.
Point 9 Sentence 3 of the Machu Picchu Declaration.
166.
Point 7, Sentence 2 of the Machu Picchu Declaration.
167.
Andean Community (no year) Culture.
168.
Ibid.
169.
At their Lima Summit in July, 2004, for example, the presidents of the member states emphasized the development of a culture of integration. With regard to cultural diversity, the countries were also entrusted with promoting the adoption of the proposed Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions at the Thirty-third Session of UNESCO’s General Conference in Paris in October, 2005. See ibid.
170.
Andean Community (2005) Elementos para la protección sui generis 22, translation by the author.
171.
Ibid., translation by the author.
172.
Id. 15, translation by the author.
173.
Andean Community (2007) Conclusions of the Indigenous Forum.
174.
Andean Community (2005) Elementos para la protección sui generis (2005) preface.
175.
See at Section 2.B.I. above.
176.
Andean Community (2005) Elementos para la protección sui generis (2005) preface. The Regional Coordinator is Rodrigo de la Cruz, Ecuador.
177.
Ibid.
178.
Id. 11.
179.
In Colombia, for example, indigenous arts, including dances, singing, handicraft, drawings, and sculptures are qualified as cultural patrimony (patrimonio cultural). See Article 189 of the Copyright Act, Ley 23 de 1982 – Ley de derecho de autor y derechos conexos. Folkloristic and traditional works of unknown authors (las obras folclóricas y tradicionales de autores desconocidos) are allocated within the public domain (dominio público); Article 187, No. 2, of the same law. See at Section 3.B.IV. below.
180.
Andean Community (2005) Elementos para la protección sui generis (2005) preface and 7.
181.
Id. 11.
182.
Id. 8.
183.
Id. 22, translation by the author.
184.
Id. preface and 7, translation by the author.
185.
Id. 11, translation by the author.
186.
Ibid.
187.
Id. preface and 11, translation by the author.
188.
Ibid.
189.
Id. 23, translation by the author.
190.
Id. preface and 11.
191.
Id. 24, in agreement with the position of the FIIB, in the GT about “Article 8j y Disposiciones Conexas,” Montreal – Canada, December 2003.
192.
Id. 23.
193.
Id. 29, translation by the author.
194.
Id. 29, see also the evaluation at Section 2.B.V.3. just below.
195.
Ibid.
196.
See at Chapter II Section 4.G. above.
197.
On the relevant aspects of the constitutions, see at Section 3.A. below.
198.
See at Chapter II Section 4.G. above.
199.
Especially on constitutional aspects hereof see at Section 3.A. below.
200.
Personal and electronic communication with Fernando Zapata Lopez, General Director of the National Copyright Direction of Colombia, in October 2008 and February 2009, who was in charge of negotiating the intellectual property aspects in the FTA between Colombia and the European Union, for instance. Ecuador has elaborated studies on the direct impacts on traditional knowledge and practices and on biodiversity in the case of a potential signing of the FTA with the United States, see “Impactos directos en la biodiversidad y los conocimientos tradicionales por la posible firma del TLC con los EE.UU” available at http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/consultations/customary_law/index.html, last visited December 29, 2010. On this aspect see also at Section 2.B.V.3. and C. above.
201.
Mols (2009) 57, translation by the author.
202.
The problems of the “final” implementation of the Model Law 2002 for the Pacific Community should be a sufficient example to learn from. Von Lewinski expressed that “it is even somewhat disturbing to learn that the individual Pacific islands still seem to be somewhat reluctant to implement the Model Law 2002 into local law,” von Lewinski (2007) 230.
203.
Chapter XX Intellectual Property Rights, SubSec. B.2.f, Art. 1.1. of the Draft Agreement, FTAA – Free Trade Area of the Americas, FTAA.TNC/w/133/Rev. 3 (November 21, 2003).
204.
See the “somewhat disturbing” practical experiences with the WIPO Pacific Model Law as just mentioned, supra note 93.
205.
See at Chapter II Section 3. above.
206.
Group of Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC) (2001) Annex II 4.
207.
Id. 5.
208.
Chapter XX Intellectual Property Rights, [Subsection B.2.d. Protection of [Expressions of] Folklore] of the Draft Agreement, FTAA – Free Trade Area of the Americas, FTAA.TNC/w/133/Rev. 3 (November 21, 2003), available at www.ftaa-alca.org/ftaadraft03/ChapterXX_e.asp, last visited November 2, 2010. For the details see at Section 2.A.I.1.d. above.
209.
Personal Communication with members of the Mexican Delegation at the XIII. Session of the IGC of WIPO in October 2008 in Geneva.
210.
Andean Community (2005) Decision 613.
211.
http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/who.htm, last visited December 27, 2010.
212.
Expressions of highly respected Venezuelan analyst Andrés Serbin, cited from Mols (2009) 56, translation by the author.
213.
Ibid.
214.
For a more detailed analysis of this political failure, which cannot be laid out here, see id. 57 et seq.
215.
Ibid., translation by the author.
216.
See, e.g., Grabendorff (2003) 163 et seq.
217.
Association of South East Asian Nations.
218.
Mols (2009) 57.
219.
See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 5, 2008: At the small summit of different presidents of the region, the representatives of the Latin American countries “again and again conjure up the importance of regional coalescence or integration; … however, these are merely crisis talks, because everyone looks for the help of the other with urgent problems, especially concerning the adequate energy and alimentary supply.” Translation by the author.
220.
Remember for instance the crisis between Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia in February/March 2008 when the Colombian military attacked a guerrilla camp on Ecuadorian ground and Raúl Reyes, the second most important leader of the Farc, died. Hugo Chavez threatened to not attend the following meeting of the Unasur at the end of March 2008.
221.
Ibid.
222.
See at Section 2.B.V.3. above.
223.
Antequera Parilli (2007) 542, translation by the author.
224.
Personal communication with Ana Cristina Bandeira Lins, Procuradora da República (equivalent of a state prosecutor or district attorney) in the Ministry of the Public (Ministerio Público), on June 23, 2009 in São Paolo, Brazil, see also Busch (2010) 220 et seq. For details, especially on the situation in Brazil (and Argentina), see at Chapter IV Section 2.C.III. and E. below.
225.
In Colombia, for instance, indigenous arts, including dances, singing, handicraft, drawings and sculptures are qualified as cultural patrimony (patrimonio cultural), see Article 189 of the Copyright Act, Ley 23 de 1982. Apart from that, folkloristic and traditional works of unknown authors (“las obras folclóricas y tradicionales de autores desconocidos”) are allocated within the public domain (dominio público): Article 187, No. 2, of the same law. This is also the situation in Mexico.
226.
A survey of the national situations will be displayed in the following. See at Section 3. below.
227.
For details see Nordmann (2001) and the gap analysis on the protection of TCEs commissioned by WIPO (2008).
228.
Kur (2001) 23 et seq. and Ramsauer (2005) 6 et seq.
229.
Principle of the “Supremácia de la Constitución” laid down in Article 424 para 2 of the Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008, “Princípio da supremacia da constituição” in the Brazilian Law, or “Grundsatz des Vorrangs der Verfassung” in German law, laid down in Article 20 para 3 of the German Constitution. See at Chapter IV Section 2.B.I. and III. below.
230.
See http://www.presidencia.gov.ec, last visited September 1, 2010.
231.
See, e.g., the recent discussions on a new constitution in Mexico, which overwhelmingly come to the result that not a new constitution is needed, but the implementation of the existing one, see El País (of Mexico) (February 1, 2010).
232.
Ibid.
233.
Ibid., and Article 191 of the (former) Ecuadorian Constitution of 1998, which provided that the enhancement, use, and development of the collective intellectual property of indigenous ancestral knowledge should occur in accordance “with the law” – a law which never was implemented. The new Constitution was adopted in 2008. See for details at Section 3.A.II.1. below.
234.
One interesting interpretation has been released by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, which is the most active and progressive juridical body in the Latin American region regarding indigenous rights. The decision particularly deals with the relations between public domain, cultural patrimony, collective, and individual ownership, Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Plena. Sentencia de abril 2 de 1987. Magistrado Ponente Jairo Duque Pérez, cited from Monroy Rodríguez (2006) no pagination. On details hereon see at Section 3.B.IV.1. below.
235.
Available at http://www.presidencia.gob.bo/download/constitution.pdf, last visited September 1, 2010.
236.
Art. 1 of the 2008 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador and Art. 1 of the 2009 Constitution of the Bolivian Republic.
237.
On this aspect of the terminology with regard to TCEs, see at Chapter II Section 1.A. above.
238.
See for example Article 3 of the Bolivian Constitution and Article 56 of the Ecuadorian Constitution.
239.
Article 1 of the Bolivian Constitution: “dentro del proceso integrador del país.”
240.
Article 6 of the 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution: “Sin perjuicio de su pertenencia a alguna de las nacionalidades indígenas que coexisten en el Ecuador plurinacional.”
241.
Personal communication on the political reality in Ecuador with Professor Fernando García Serrano, longtime professor and researcher in the Anthropology Department at FLACSO University (Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencia Sociales) in Quito, Ecuador, in March 2009, in Quito, and see the concept of the equalizing “Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social” in Articles 207 et seq. of the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador.
242.
Article 89 at the end.
243.
Articles 215 and 216 of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution. For details related to TCEs, see at Chapter IV Section 2.B.I.2. below.
244.
Article 215 of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution.
245.
Article 62 of the Guatemalan Constitution.
246.
On the terminology see at Chapter II Section 1.A. above.
247.
For questions of compatibility of such prohibitions or sui generis provisions with the international framework on intellectual property rights, namely, TRIPS, see Straus (2008) 229–295.
248.
Article 89 at the end.
249.
Article 89 of the 1993 Constitution of Peru.
250.
“The exploitation of natural resources in indigenous territories shall be done without prejudice to the cultural, social and economic integrity of indigenous communities. The government shall promote the participation of the representatives of the respective communities.” See Article 330 of the 1991 Colombian Constitution, translation by de la Cruz I. (2006) 14.
251.
Article 191 of the former Ecuadorian Constitution.
252.
Article 57, No. 17, of the 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution states: “The following collective rights of the indigenous communes, communities, peoples, and nationalities are recognized and guaranteed in conformity with the Constitution and international pacts, treaties, conventions, declarations and other instruments of human rights: … 17. To be consulted before the adoption of a legislative measure that could effect any of their collective rights.” For a good overview and details on the principle of prior consultation, see http://www.codenpe.gov.ec/images/descargables/consulta2.jpg, last visited October 28, 2010.
253.
Article 63 of the Constitution of Paraguay.
254.
Article 231 of the 1998 Constitution. For details see at Chapter IV Section 2.B.I. below.
255.
Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution.
256.
Article 66 of the Constitution of Guatemala.
257.
Translation by de la Cruz I. (2006) 13.
258.
Article 119 of the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela.
259.
Article 260 of the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela.
260.
See Article 191 of the former Ecuadorian Constitution.
261.
See Article 191 of the former Ecuadorian Constitution.
262.
“En el marco de la unidad del Estado y de acuerdo con esta Constitución las naciones y pueblos indígena originario campesinos gozan de los siguientes derechos: … 13. … Al ejercicio de sus sistemas políticos, jurídicos y económicos acorde a su cosmovisión,” Article 30, para. 2, of the 2009 Constitution of Bolivia.
263.
Costa Rica: Indigenous Law No. 6172, which grants the indigenous peoples the right to organize themselves as traditionally structured communities within their territory. Chile: The Indian Law, Ley Indigena 19.253, for details see Heise (2000).
264.
Costa Rican Law No. 7788 on Biodiversity (Ley de Biodiversidad); for more details see Bucher (2008) 251 et seq.
265.
See Grote (1999) 507 et seq.
266.
On a comprehensive analysis of the difference between indigenous rights on paper and in reality, particularly as regards the afore-mentioned Indian Law in Chile, see Heise (2000).
267.
WIPO (2008).
268.
The comments of Brazil are available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/gap_analyses_pdf/tce_tk_brazil_general.pdf, and http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/gap_analyses_pdf/tce_brazil.pdf; those of Mexico at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/gap_analyses_pdf/tce_tk_mexico_general.pdf, http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/gap_analyses_pdf/tce_mexico_1.pdf, and http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/gap_analyses_pdf/tce_mexico_2.pdf, last visited October 28, 2010.
269.
On this see at Section 1. above.
270.
Guatemalan Legislative Decree No. 426 of 1947, as printed in Valiente López (2006) 83 et seq.
271.
Ibid. and Articles 1 et seq. of the Guatemalan Legislative Decree No. 426 of 1947.
272.
Article 7 of the Decree.
273.
Article 8 of the Decree.
274.
Articles 2 and 9 of the Decree.
275.
Article 9 of the Decree.
276.
See at Chapter IV Section 1. below.
277.
Valiente López (2006) 85.
278.
For the inclusion of handicrafts in the concept of TCEs see at Chapter II Section 1.B.I.1.b. above.
279.
WIPO Secretariat (2005) 7.
280.
Id.
281.
On this see at Chapter IV Section 1.A. et seq. below.
282.
See at Chapter IV Section 1.B. below. Collective trademarks have been used for protecting TCEs elsewhere, though, e.g. in Portugal. There, the Arraiolos carpets, having been produced by local artisans since the 13^th century, as well as “handkerchiefs of the fiancées,” embroidery manufactured in a few villages in Minho with origins in the 17^th century, have been registered as trademarks. See WIPO Secretariat (2005) 8 et seq. On design and trademark law and TCEs in general, especially regarding the use of certification marks and the experience with them in Australia and Canada, see Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 399 et seq.
283.
See CHIRAPAQ/Rivera Zea (ed.) (2007): The original title of the workshop was “Taller Internacional ‘Protegiendo la Propiedad Intelectual del Diseño Indígena.’”
284.
Id. 32–34.
285.
Personal communication with J.M. of the Asháninka Indians of Peru on June 10, 2008: The system of trademarks and their administrative entities situated in the Peruvian Capital Lima would require steps which are too difficult, too intricate, too labor-intensive for the members of their community living in the Amazon rainforest.
286.
WIPO Secretariat (2005) 10.
287.
Ibid.
288.
Ibid.
289.
Other arguments against the use of trademarks are that “distinctive signs do not permit the craftspeople to prohibit others to manufacture the crafts; they only give the right to prevent others from using similar signs in the course of trade to designate similar or identical handicrafts,” id. 13. However, geographical indications do not provide for protection against imitations, either. The author thanks Josef Drexl for this valuable hint.
290.
Personal communication with Lucia Regina Fernandes, Official for Geographic Indications at the National Institute of Industrial Property, “Instituto Nacional de Propiedade Industrial (INPI)” in March 2009 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
291.
On the different terms and their meanings see at Chapter II Section 1. above.
292.
Articles 21–23 of the Bolivian Copyright Law, Act No. 1322 of April 13, 1992.
293.
Article 1, para. 3, of the Bolivian Copyright Law.
294.
“Capítulo III – De las Culturas Populares”, Articles 157–161 of the Mexican Copyright Law, “Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor” of 1996, as amended in 2003.
295.
See Article 158: “Las obras literarias, artística, de arte popular o artesanal; desarrolladas y perpetuadas en una comunidad o etnia originaria o arraigada en la República Mexicana, estarán protegidas por la presente Ley contra su deformación, hecha con objeto de causar demérito a la misma o perjuicio a la reputación o imagen de la comunidad o etnia a la cual pertenecen.”
296.
See Article 157: “La presente Ley protege las obras literarias, artísticas, de arte popular o artesanal, así como todas las manifestaciones primigenias en sus propias lenguas, y los usos, costumbres y tradiciones de la composición pluricultural que conforman al Estado Mexicano, que no cuenten con autor identificable.”
297.
See Article 160: “En toda fijación, representación, publicación, comunicación o utilización en cualquier forma, de una obra literaria, artística, de arte popular o artesanal; protegida conforme al presente capítulo, deberá mencionarse la comunidad o etnia, o en su caso la región de la República Mexicana de la que es propia.”
298.
Article 159 stipulates: “Es libre la utilización de las obras literarias, artísticas, de arte popular o artesanal; protegidas por el presente capítulo, siempre que no se contravengan las disposiciones del mismo.”
299.
Article 161 provides that “Corresponde al Instituto vigilar el cumplimiento de las disposiciones del presente capítulo y coadyuvar en la protección de las obras amparadas por el mismo.”
300.
Article 92bis para. 3 of the Mexican Copyright Law.
301.
Article 5 of the Mexican Copyright Law. See also the optional requirement of fixation laid down in Article 2 para. 2 of the Revised Berne Convention.
302.
On the terminology see at Chapter II Section 1. above.
303.
Article 96 of the Copyright Law of Nicaragua, Law No. 312 of 1999, which stipulates: “Cuando la expresión del folklore sirva como base de una obra, deberá indicarse por el autor y por quien lo divulgue o lo difunda por cualquier medio o procedimiento esta circunstancia, así como el departamento o región de donde proviniere esa expresión y su título, si lo tuviere.”
304.
Articles 26 and 27 of the Cuban Copyright Law, Ley 14 de 1977, which are entitled Chapter IV – On National Folklore. Article 26 reads: “Se protegen por esta Ley todas aquellas obras folklóricas que han venido siendo transmitidas de generación en generación, contribuyendo a conformar la identidad cultural nacional de manera anónima y colectiva o en cualquier otra forma.” Article 27 stipulates that “Quienes recojan y compilen bailes, canciones, melodías, proverbios, fábulas, cuentos y otras manifestaciones del folklore nacional, disfrutan del derecho de autor sobre sus obras, siempre que las mismas, por la selección o la disposición de los materiales que incluyan, lleguen a constituir obras auténticas y rigurosas.”
305.
Article 189 of the Colombian Copyright Law, Law No. 23 of 1982.
306.
Article 187 No. 3 of the Law.
307.
Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Plena. Sentencia de abril 2 de 1987. Magistrado Ponente Jairo Duque Pérez, cited from Monroy Rodríguez (2006) no pagination. The former Article 35 of the Colombian Constitution protected literary and artistic property.
308.
Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Plena. Sentencia de abril 2 de 1987. Magistrado Ponente Jairo Duque Pérez, cited from id.
309.
On this discussion see at Section 3.B.IV.4. below.
310.
See the 1976 Tunis Model Law, dealing with folklore among other copyright legislation, especially Article 17 establishing the paying public domain, and the 1982, “Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions,” and the “Draft Treaty for the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions”. On a discussion on Article 17 of the Tunis Model Law see Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 447.
311.
Bolivian Copyright Act of April 29, 1992.
312.
On this see at Chapter IV Section 2.B.IV.1. below.
313.
Article 21 defines “folklore in the strict sense” as “the sum of literary and artistic works created in the national territory by unknown or unidentifiable authors, who are presumed to be nationals or the ethnic communities of the country, and which [works] are transmitted from generation to generation, constituting one of the fundamental elements of the traditional cultural patrimony of the Nation”. It reads fully: “Se consideran protegidas por esta Ley todas aquellas obras consideradas como folklore, entendiéndose por folklore en sentido estricto: el conjunto de obras literarias y artísticas creadas en el territorio nacional por autores no conocidos o que no se identifiquen y que se presuman nacionales del país o de sus comunidades étnicas y se trasmitan de generación en generación, constituyendo uno de los elementos fundamentales del patrimonio cultural tradicional de la nación.”
314.
Article 22 provides: “Las obras del folklore de acuerdo con la definición anterior, para los efectos de su utilización como obras literarias y artísticas, serán consideradas como obras pertenecientes al patrimonio nacional de conformidad con las normas contenidas en el título XI de la presente Ley, sin perjuicio de las normas de protección que puedan ser adoptadas por otras instituciones del Estado o por acuerdos internacionales.”
315.
Article 23 establishes: “Las artesanías y el diseño artesanal serán protegidos por las normas generales de la presente Ley y especialmente por aquéllas referidas a las artes plásticas y al patrimonio nacional.” Article 58 lit. a) stiuplates: “Patrimonio Nacional es el régimen al que pasan las obras de autor boliviano que salen de la protección del derecho patrimonial privado, por cualquier causa; pertenecen al Patrimonio Nacional: a) Las obras folklóricas y de cultura tradicional de autor no conocido.”
316.
See Article 60 of the Copyright Law: “La utilización bajo cualquier forma o procedimiento de obras del Patrimonio Nacional y del dominio público será libre, pero quien lo haga comercialmente, pagará al Estado, de acuerdo con lo establecido en los reglamentos, una participación cuyo monto no será menor del diez por ciento (10%) y no mayor del cincuenta por ciento (50%) que el que se pague a los autores o sus causahabientes por utilización de obras similares sujetas al régimen privado de protección.”
Article 61 reads: “Los montos recaudados por concepto de utilización de obras del Patrimonio Nacional, se aplicarán únicamente al fomento y difusión de los valores culturales del país.”
317.
Article 60 of the Copyright Law.
318.
Article 25, para 2, of the Executive Decree.
319.
Article 62 of the Copyright Law, which provides: “El Estado a través de la Dirección Nacional de Derechos de Autor reconocerá del porcentaje recaudado por obras de Patrimonio Nacional, un diez por ciento (10%) al recopilador y un diez por ciento (10%) a la comunidad de origen en caso de ser identificados.”
320.
Article 25, para. 1, of the Executive Decree.
321.
Article 62 of the Copyright Law (“Dirección Nacional de Derechos de Autor”) and Article 25 of the Executive Decree.
322.
Article 7 of the Executive Decree.
323.
Article 7 para 2, 2^nd sentence, of the Executive Decree.
324.
Unterguggenberger (1999) 111.
325.
WIPO (2001), see especially the Fact Finding Mission to Bolivia, p. 5.
326.
Information of the Panamanian DIGERPI on a respective Bolivian request, personal communication with Luz Celeste Ríos de Davis, General Director of the Industrial Property Registry, in February, 2009, Panama City.
327.
Law on the Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Collective Knowledge Associated with Biological Resources No. 27811. For details see at Chapter II Section 1.A.IV. above.
328.
Bucher (2008) 185.
329.
Article 13 of the Peruvian Law No. 27811.
330.
Article 13 of the Peruvian Law No. 27811.
331.
Bucher (2008) 194.
332.
Tobin (2002) 386, 387.
333.
Taubman and Leistner (2008) 147.
334.
Carneiro da Cunha (no year) no pagination.
335.
Ibid.
336.
Ibid.
337.
Articles 2 and 3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
338.
Carneiro da Cunha (no year).
339.
Ibid.
340.
Ibid.
341.
Id.
342.
See the encompassing study of Alich (2010).
343.
On this see at Section 3.B.IV.3. above.
344.
Carneiro da Cunha (no year).
345.
EoFs stands for Expressions of Folkore, and was used interchangeably with “TCEs” at WIPO at that stage. The citation constitutes the specific comment of Brazil on Paragraph 89 of the gap analysis on the protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCE)/Expressions of Folklore (EF) of the IGC of WIPO, and is available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/igc/gap_analyses_pdf/tce_brazil.pdf, last visited October 28, 2010.
346.
For a discussion on the public domain and the WIPO approach, see De Roman Pérez (2007) 66–110.
347.
Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 447.
348.
Article 1, para. 2, of Law No. 24047, of January 5, 1985.
349.
Article 3 of Law No. 24047.
350.
Article 9 of Law No. 24047, translation inspired by Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 429.
351.
See the definition of cultural patrimony in Article 1 and of the intangible cultural heritage in Article 3 para. 2 of the Law “Ley para la Proteccion del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación”, No. 26–97 of April 25, 1997, contained in the Decree of the Congress of the same date, available at http://www.mcd.gob.gt/, last visited November 2, 2010.
352.
“Es el constituído por instituciones, tradiciones y costumbres tales como: la tradición oral, musical, medicinal, culinaria, artesanal, religiosa, de danza y teatro,” Article 3 para. 2 of the Law.
353.
Lucas-Schlötter (2008) 430 et seq.
354.
See for details Articles 9 and 10 of the Law.
355.
See at Chapter IV Section 2.C.II.1. below.
356.
The Article was inserted by means of Article 8 of Law No. 1185 of 2008 as new Article 11-1 of the Colombian “Ley General de Cultura,” Law 397 of 1997.
357.
Monroy Rodríguez (2006) no pagination, translation by the author.
358.
Id.
359.
“Artículo 11-1. Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial. El patrimonio cultural inmaterial está constituido, entre otros, por las manifestaciones, prácticas, usos, representaciones, expresiones, conocimientos, técnicas y espacios culturales, que las comunidades y los grupos reconocen como parte integrante de su patrimonio cultural. Este patrimonio genera sentimientos de identidad y establece vínculos con la memoria colectiva. Es transmitido y recreado a lo largo del tiempo en función de su entorno, su interacción con la naturaleza y su historia y contribuye a promover el respeto de la diversidad cultural y la creatividad humana.”
360.
No. 1. of Article 11-1: “Lista Representativa de Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial. Las manifestaciones del patrimonio cultural inmaterial podrán ser incluidas en la Lista Representativa de Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial.Cualquier declaratoria anterior como bien de interés cultural del ámbito nacional respecto de las manifestaciones a las que se refiere este artículo quedará incorporada a la Lista Representativa de Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial a partir de la promulgación de esta ley.2. Plan de Salvaguardia. Con la inclusión de una manifestación cultural en la Lista Representativa de Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial se aprobará un Plan Especial de Salvaguardia orientado al fortalecimiento, revitalización, sostenibilidad y promoción de la respectiva manifestación.El Ministerio de Cultura reglamentará para todo el territorio nacional el contenido y alcance de los Planes Especiales de Salvaguardia.3. Identificación. Como componente fundamental para el conocimiento, salvaguardia y manejo del patrimonio cultural inmaterial, corresponde al Ministerio de Cultura, en coordinación con el Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia, definir las herramientas para la identificación de las manifestaciones. La identificación de las manifestaciones a que se refiere este artículo se hará con la participación activa de las comunidades.4. Competencias. La competencia y manejo de la Lista Representativa de Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial corresponde al Ministerio de Cultura en coordinación con el Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia, y a las entidades territoriales según lo previsto en el artículo 8o de este Título.En todo caso, la inclusión de manifestaciones en la Lista Representativa de Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial, deberá contar, según el caso, con el concepto previo favorable del Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural, o de los respectivos Consejos Departamentales o Distritales de Patrimonio Cultural.”
361.
Article 13 stipulates: “Derechos de Grupos Etnicos. … Con el fin de proteger lenguas, tradiciones, usos y costumbres y saberes, el Estado garantizará los derechos de autoría colectiva de los grupos étnicos, apoyará los procesos de etnoeducación, y estimulará la difusión de su patrimonio a través de los medios de comunicación.” Emphasis in the English translation added by the author.
362.
Monroy Rodríguez (2006) no pagination.
363.
“Decreto en Defensa de las Industrias Indígenas del día 4 de mayo de 1936.”
364.
Valiente López (2006) 81.
365.
Some international examples of contracts and licensing agreements at WIPO can be found under http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/folklore/creative_heritage/agreements/, as well as on the database prepared by the Intergovernmental Committee of WIPO at http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/databases/contracts/index.html, last visited October 25, 2010.
366.
See www.socioambiental.org/, last visited October 27, 2010.
367.
See www.cimi.org.br/, last visited October 27, 2010.
368.
Report of the Seventh Session of the WIPO IGC, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/15, para. 175.
369.
See at Section 3.E.II. below. On the other hand, such negotiations or contracts have also resulted in legal problems afterwards – which, however, were not always due to negotiating asymmetries, but rather to internal problems like representation. See the experiences made by FUNAI in Brazil, see at Chapter IV Section 2.D.II. below.
370.
Like the Museu do Índio in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; on this see at Chapter IV Section 2. below.
371.
CHIRAPAQ/Rivera Zea (ed.) (2007) 35, translation by the author. Legal support for drafting the contract was given by Milagritos Chía López, ibid.
372.
Id. 35, translation by the author.
373.
Id. 137–140, translation by the author.
374.
Id. 37.
375.
Id. 38.
376.
Clause 1 para. 1 of the Contract. Id. 137.
377.
Clause 1 para. 4 of the Contract. Ibid.
378.
Clause 1 para. 5 of the Contract. Ibid.
379.
Clauses 2 and 1 para 6 of the Contract. Exclusive rights of use for a certain period of time may be licensed in addition: clause 3 para 1 point 3. Ibid.
380.
Clause 3 para. 2 point 2 and clause 8 of the Contract. Ibid.
381.
Clause 3 para. 2 of the Contract. Ibid.
382.
Clause 5 of the Contract. Ibid.
383.
Hermelinda Nina, president of the Association at that time, cited from id. 38, translation by the author.
384.
Ibid.
385.
Fausto and Franchetto (eds.) (2008).
386.
Ibid. Translation, insertions (all) and emphasis added by the author.
387.
The clause reads: “Copyright 2003 Associações Kuikuro, Kalapalo, Nahukwá e Matipu para os desenhos de autoria indígena. Os direitos autorais sobre os desenhos constantes da presente obra são de natureza coletiva e pertencem aos povos alto-xinguanos, representados por suas associações. Fica proibida a reoridzção total ou parcial das ilustrações contidas nesta obra sema prévia e expressa autorização, por escrito, dos povos alto-xinguanos, através de suas associações e representantes. A renda proveniente da venda desta publicação reverterá integralmente para as atividades educacionais desses povos,” ibid.
388.
On anthropological thoughts on the difference between associations and social structures and communities and its impact on the broader topic of TCEs see the challenges in representation according to customary law, at Chapter II Section 5.D.II. above.
389.
For details on and publications of ISA see http://www.socioambiental.org, last visited December 29, 2010.
390.
See Janke (no year) 16 et seq.
391.
Ibid.
392.
For details see at Chapter II Section 4.E. above and COICA (2005) 62 et seq.
393.
Ministério da Cultura – Secretaria de Identidade e da Diversidade Cultural (2006) 161–163, translation by the author. The principles are entitled in the original: “Princípios, parâmetros e recomendações para valorizar as culturas populares.”, ibid.
394.
Lipszyc (1993).
395.
Antequera Parilli (2007) 518.
396.
Monroy Rodríguez (2006) at section 6.
397.
For decisions of Brazilian courts in the area of indigenous rights and aspects thereof relevant to the topic of TCEs, see at Chapter IV Section 2.D.V. below.
398.
Decision T–769 of October 29, 2009: “Acción de tutela instaurada por Álvaro Bailarín y otros, contra los Ministerios del Interior y de Justicia; de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial; de Defensa; de Protección Social; y de Minas y Energía”. See http://ccr6.pgr.mpf.gov.br/destaques-do-site/corte-constitucional-colombiana-dicta-sentencia-historica-sobre-consulta-previa-a-pueblos-indigenas-y-comunidades-negras, last visited May 31, 2010.
399.
On this decision and further details on the discussion, see Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala Plena, Sentencia de abril 2 de 1987. Magistrado Ponente Jairo Duque Pérez, cited from Monroy Rodríguez (2006) no pagination and see at Section 3.B.IV.1. above.
400.
WIPO (2001) see in particular Fact Finding Mission to Bolivia, p. 4 et seq.
401.
WIPO (2001) see in particular Fact Finding Mission to Bolivia, p. 4 et seq.
402.
See, e.g., Fausto and Franchetto (eds.) (2008). On other activities and publications of the “Museu do Índio” see at Chapter IV Section 2.D.IV. below and http://www.museudoindio.org.br/, last visited December 29, 2010.
403.
See, e.g., IPHAN – Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional (2008) and at Chapter IV Section 2.D.IV. below.
404.
See at Section 2.C. above.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Berlin, Germany
Anna Friederike Busch

Authors

Anna Friederike Busch
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Busch, A.F. (2015). Chapter III. The Broader Legal Framework. In: Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions in Latin America. Munich Studies on Innovation and Competition, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46770-1_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46770-1_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-46769-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-46770-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics